Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 1/2015

01-01-2015 | Breast

Comparative evaluation of average glandular dose and breast cancer detection between single-view digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus single-view digital mammography (DM) and two-view DM: correlation with breast thickness and density

Authors: Sung Ui Shin, Jung Min Chang, Min Sun Bae, Su Hyun Lee, Nariya Cho, Mirinae Seo, Won Hwa Kim, Woo Kyung Moon

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To compare the average glandular dose (AGD) and diagnostic performance of mediolateral oblique (MLO) digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus cranio-caudal (CC) digital mammography (DM) with two-view DM, and to evaluate the correlation of AGD with breast thickness and density.

Methods

MLO and CC DM and DBT images of both breasts were obtained in 149 subjects. AGDs of DBT and DM per exposure were recorded, and their correlation with breast thickness and density were evaluated. Paired data of MLO DBT plus CC DM and two-view DM were reviewed for presence of malignancy in a jack-knife alternative free-response ROC (JAFROC) method.

Results

The AGDs of both DBT and DM, and differences in AGD between DBT and DM (ΔAGD), were correlated with breast thickness and density. The average JAFROC figure of merit (FOM) was significantly higher on the combined technique than two-view DM (P = 0.005). In dense breasts, the FOM and sensitivity of the combined technique was higher than that of two-view DM (P = 0.003) with small ΔAGD.

Conclusions

MLO DBT plus CC DM provided higher diagnostic performance than two-view DM in dense breasts with a small increase in AGD.

Key Points

• DBT has higher diagnostic performance and potential to overcome limitations of DM.
• Dose differences (DBT-DM, ΔAGD) were inversely correlated with breast thickness and density.
• Figure of merit of MLO-DBT/CC-DM was higher than that of two-view DM.
• In dense breasts, MLO-DBT/CC-DM provides better diagnostic performance with a small AGD increase.
Literature
1.
Berry DA, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK et al (2005) Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med 353:1784–1792PubMedCrossRef
2.
Hellquist BN, Duffy SW, Abdsaleh S et al (2011) Effectiveness of population-based service screening with mammography for women ages 40 to 49 years: evaluation of the Swedish Mammography Screening in Young Women (SCRY) cohort. Cancer 117:714–722PubMedCrossRef
3.
Tabar L, Fagerberg CJ, Gad A et al (1985) Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography. Randomised trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Lancet 1:829–832PubMedCrossRef
4.
Tabar L, Yen MF, Vitak B, Chen HH, Smith RA, Duffy SW (2003) Mammography service screening and mortality in breast cancer patients: 20-year follow-up before and after introduction of screening. Lancet 361:1405–1410PubMedCrossRef
5.
Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E et al (2005) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783PubMedCrossRef
6.
Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC et al (2003) Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 138:168–175PubMedCrossRef
7.
Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ et al (2007) Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 356:227–236PubMedCrossRef
8.
Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL et al (2000) Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:1081–1087PubMedCrossRef
9.
Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster V (1996) Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA 276:33–38PubMedCrossRef
10.
Noroozian M, Hadjiiski L, Rahnama-Moghadam S et al (2012) Digital breast tomosynthesis is comparable to mammographic spot views for mass characterization. Radiology 262:61–68PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
11.
Tagliafico A, Astengo D, Cavagnetto F et al (2012) One-to-one comparison between digital spot compression view and digital breast tomosynthesis. Eur Radiol 22:539–544PubMedCrossRef
12.
Tagliafico A, Tagliafico G, Astengo D et al (2012) Mammographic density estimation: one-to-one comparison of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis using fully automated software. Eur Radiol 22:1265–1270PubMedCrossRef
13.
Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE et al (2013) Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. Radiology 266:104–113PubMedCrossRef
14.
Gur D, Bandos AI, Rockette HE et al (2011) Localized detection and classification of abnormalities on FFDM and tomosynthesis examinations rated under an FROC paradigm. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:737–741PubMedCrossRef
15.
Svahn T, Andersson I, Chakraborty D et al (2010) The diagnostic accuracy of dual-view digital mammography, single-view breast tomosynthesis and a dual-view combination of breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography in a free-response observer performance study. Radiat Prot Dosim 139:113–117CrossRef
16.
Michell MJ, Iqbal A, Wasan RK et al (2012) A comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis. Clin Radiol 67:976–981PubMedCrossRef
17.
Wallis MG, Moa E, Zanca F, Leifland K, Danielsson M (2012) Two-view and single-view tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: high-resolution X-ray imaging observer study. Radiology 262:788–796PubMedCrossRef
18.
Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013) Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 267:47–56PubMedCrossRef
19.
Teertstra HJ, Loo CE, van den Bosch MA et al (2010) Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results. Eur Radiol 20:16–24PubMedCrossRef
20.
Gennaro G, Toledano A, di Maggio C et al (2010) Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study. Eur Radiol 20:1545–1553PubMedCrossRef
21.
Svahn TM, Chakraborty DP, Ikeda D et al (2012) Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of diagnostic accuracy. Br J Radiol 85:e1074–e1082PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
22.
Gennaro G, Hendrick RE, Toledano A et al (2013) Combination of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis with one-view digital mammography versus standard two-view digital mammography: per lesion analysis. Eur Radiol 23:2087–2094PubMedCrossRef
23.
Gennaro G, Hendrick RE, Ruppel P et al (2013) Performance comparison of single-view digital breast tomosynthesis plus single-view digital mammography with two-view digital mammography. Eur Radiol 23:664–672PubMedCrossRef
24.
25.
Hackshaw AK, Wald NJ, Michell MJ, Field S, Wilson AR (2000) An investigation into why two-view mammography is better than one-view in breast cancer screening. Clin Radiol 55:454–458PubMedCrossRef
26.
27.
Dance DR, Thilander AK, Sandborg M, Skinner CL, Castellano IA, Carlsson GA (2000) Influence of anode/filter material and tube potential on contrast, signal-to-noise ratio and average absorbed dose in mammography: a Monte Carlo study. Br J Radiol 73:1056–1067PubMedCrossRef
28.
Ren B, Ruth C, Wu T et al (2010) A new generation FFDM/tomosynthesis fusion system with selenium detector. Proc SPIE 7622:76220B–76211CrossRef
29.
D’Orsi CJ, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB et al (2013) ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, breast imaging reporting and data system. American College of Radiology, Reston
30.
Waldherr C, Cerny P, Altermatt HJ et al (2013) Value of one-view breast tomosynthesis versus two-view mammography in diagnostic workup of women with clinical signs and symptoms and in women recalled from screening. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:226–231PubMedCrossRef
31.
Hendrick RE, Pisano ED, Averbukh A et al (2010) Comparison of acquisition parameters and breast dose in digital mammography and screen-film mammography in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194:362–369PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
32.
33.
Haas BM, Kalra V, Geisel J, Raghu M, Durand M, Philpotts LE (2013) Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. Radiology 269:694–700PubMedCrossRef
34.
Rose SL, Tidwell AL, Bujnoch LJ, Kushwaha AC, Nordmann AS, Sexton R Jr (2013) Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:1401–1408PubMedCrossRef
35.
Bernardi D, Ciatto S, Pellegrini M et al (2012) Prospective study of breast tomosynthesis as a triage to assessment in screening. Breast Cancer Res Treat 133:267–271PubMedCrossRef
36.
Gur D, Bandos AI, Cohen CS et al (2008) The “laboratory” effect: comparing radiologists’ performance and variability during prospective clinical and laboratory mammography interpretations. Radiology 249:47–53PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Comparative evaluation of average glandular dose and breast cancer detection between single-view digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus single-view digital mammography (DM) and two-view DM: correlation with breast thickness and density
Authors
Sung Ui Shin
Jung Min Chang
Min Sun Bae
Su Hyun Lee
Nariya Cho
Mirinae Seo
Won Hwa Kim
Woo Kyung Moon
Publication date
01-01-2015
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 1/2015
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3399-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

European Radiology 1/2015 Go to the issue

Cardiac

Cardiac CT for planning redo cardiac surgery: effect of knowledge-based iterative model reconstruction on image quality

Computed Tomography

Osteoporosis markers on low-dose lung cancer screening chest computed tomography scans predict all-cause mortality

Magnetic Resonance

Non-contrast MRI perfusion angiosome in diabetic feet

Gastrointestinal

Diagnostic Accuracy of Real-Time Tissue Elastography for the Staging of Liver Fibrosis: A Meta-Analysis

Chest

Assessment of the relationship between morphological emphysema phenotype and corresponding pulmonary perfusion pattern on a segmental level

Gastrointestinal

Hepatocellular carcinoma: clinical significance of signal heterogeneity in the hepatobiliary phase of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging